ARIJIT PASAYAT - (1.) . A controversy which could have been solved long back has been blown out of proportion, making the parties travel through the corridors of various courts and has finally landed in this Court. Whenever there is prolongation of litigation, ultimate sufferers are the litigating parties, and inevitably justice delivery system. Resultant is miscarriage of justice.
(2.) IT is painful to notice that the arduous journey of litigating parties started about two decades back in an educational institution, named Goodwill Girls' High School. Ironically, the controversy started because of alleged "ill will" amongst the parties. Helen Keller, the great humanist had once said: "The highest result of education is tolerance." But the foundation of the dispute was alleged intolerance by those who matter, in the concerned educational institution. Steering clear of the red herrings, the factual scenario is as follows: Smt. J. Mary Susheela-respondent no.1 in this appeal filed a suit no. 10050 of 1985 in the court of city civil judge, Bangalore seeking a mandatory injunction directing the defendants (the appellants in this appeal) to assign teaching work to her pursuant to the order of the appointment. Her claim essentially was that she was selected for appointment as a teacher in the appellant no. 1 institution, but no order of appointment was issued by the then principal who was also in the selection committee, primarily because she had not agreed to her appointment during the course of selection. The suit was dismissed. However, the trial court observed that in the interest of the students community, which is of utmost importance, it was hoped that the selection committee will issue formal order of appointment without further delay. In view of this observation the management of the school issued a letter of appointment directing the plaintiff to report for duties on or before 15.6.1985. Plaintiff claimed that though she reported for duty, the principal (defendant no.2) did not allow her to function. That led to filing of the second suit, to which this appeal relates, bearing OS. No. 10456/ 1985. By order dated 27.9.1988 the XIX additional city civil judge passed an order purportedly under Order 14 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the CPC'). It is to be noted that though six issues were framed, the only issue which was taken up was as follows: "1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to assign the work as claimed in the suit?" The trial court dismissed the suit, inter alia, observing as follows: "In the result, in view of my foregoing discussions my finding on issue no. 1 is that the plaintiff has failed to establish that she is entitled for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to assign the work as claimed in the suit. Consequently, the suit fails and the same is hereby dismissed." Plaintiff filed an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. By the impugned judgment the learned single judge decreed the suit with costs and additionally directed that payment was to be made to the plaintiff by the 1st defendant w.e.f. 10.6.1985. Said judgment is assailed in this' appeal by the two defendants i.e. management of the school and the principal.
(3.) THE basic ground for challenge is that learned single judge expanded the scope of the appeal and when one issue was taken up by the trial court, it was not open to the High Court to take all the issues that were framed initially by the trial court and render findings on those issues. THE plaintiff was working in another institution and, therefore, the direction for paying salary right from 10.6.1985 is without any justification. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent in response, submitted that the present appeal was limited to the question of back wages and the appellant no.1 in this appeal having conceded to the position that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to the benefits claimed, the suit has been rightly decreed on the concessions and admissions made by defendant no.1. Though defendant no.2 (appellant no.2 herein) resisted the claim, the same was of no consequence because the appointment was made by the management-appellant no.1 and being an employee of appellant-defendant no.1, the appellant no.2 could not have taken any stand at variance with the management.;